[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 15]
[Senate]
[Pages 22010-22025]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




         FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION EXTENSION ACT OF 2010

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of the House message to accompany H.R. 4853, which 
the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       Motion to concur in the House amendment to the Senate 
     amendment with an amendment to H.R. 4853, an act to amend the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend the funding and 
     expenditure authority of the Airport and Airway Trust Fund, 
     to amend title 49, United States Code, to extend 
     authorizations for the airport improvement program, and for 
     other purposes.

  Pending:

       Reid motion to concur in the amendment of the House to the 
     amendment of the Senate to the bill, with Reid/McConnell 
     modified amendment No. 4753 (to the House amendment to the 
     Senate amendment), in the nature of a substitute.
       Reid amendment No. 4754 (to amendment No. 4753), to change 
     the enactment date.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I understand that under the previous 
order, I have 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. COBURN. I will attempt not to use that complete time.


                           Motion To Suspend

  We have an amendment No. 4765, which is a motion to suspend the rules 
and consider the amendment, and I will make that motion in a moment.
  We have before us a bill. We are going to spend $136 billion more 
than what we planned to spend before this agreement was made. We have 
no opportunity under regular order to offset that with less priority, 
less important items. So we have an amendment for the Senate to vote 
on. It is not pain free. It is painful. But it cuts $150 billion from 
Federal expenditures to pay for the additional Federal expenditures 
that will go out the door as a result of this bill.
  I actually believe every one of my colleagues in the Senate 
understands the jam we are in. Where I am confused is that when we 
bring cuts to the floor, not only do they not vote for the cuts, they 
do not offer alternative cuts. And you really cannot have it both ways. 
You cannot say you recognize the significant difficulty our country is 
in and turn around and vote against somebody making an effort to get us 
out of that jam and not offer other additional

[[Page 22011]]

spending cuts for which to pay. We do not have that privilege any 
longer. So either the recognition of the problem is real or it is not.
  Let me describe what has happened just in the last 2\1/2\ years. We 
have run a budget deficit for now 27 straight months, including this 
month. The 2009 budget deficit, as reported, was $1.4 trillion. It was 
actually $1.6 trillion when you include the money we actually stole 
from trust funds and other items--in 2010, $1.3 trillion. On the basis 
of how we are going now, our budget deficit will probably be, in real 
terms--not what is reported to the American people but the actual fact 
of how much the debt will increase--probably $1.6 trillion to $1.7 
trillion. How long can we continue to do that? As a matter of fact, the 
largest monthly budget deficit ever reported was October--$291 billion.
  The time to act is now. If you do not like what I have put up, then 
put something else up. Let's have a debate about it. Let's have an 
honest discussion about the problem and the possible solutions. That is 
what the deficit commission was trying to do. That is what a group of 
us, including the President pro tempore, are trying to do on a 
bipartisan basis.
  There is no longer a debate on whether we are going to have to cut 
spending in our country. Almost everybody agrees to it. The question 
is, When will we start? I will tell you, if this amendment passes, we 
will send a notice to the world that we get it. The international 
financial community will start seeing us acting as adults and no longer 
delaying the time at which we will start chipping and stop digging. We 
have a hole so deep we may not climb out of it now. The last thing we 
want to do is make that hole deeper.
  So, Mr. President, I move to suspend rule XXII, including any 
germaneness requirements, for the purposes of proposing and considering 
amendment No. 4765, and I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion is pending.
  Is there a sufficient second?
  At the moment, there is not a sufficient second.
  Mr. COBURN. I will reoffer.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Thank you, Mr. President. I would like to ask unanimous 
consent to use the general time, not my own 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is no general debate time.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Can I ask to use my leadership time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator does not have leader time.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. OK. Then I will use 1 minute of my time out of the 10 I 
have.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Thank you, Mr. President.
  In just a few minutes--sometime before the hour of 12--I am going to 
be asking for unanimous consent to correct a mistake that was made in 
the final negotiations of this tax package, which contains, as you 
know, $890 billion worth of items. It is a big bill. It was negotiated 
with the White House and the Republican leadership primarily, and then 
the Democratic leaders had some input into it as well.
  What happened was--and, Mr. President, please stop me in a minute and 
a half--there was a misunderstanding, a terrible misunderstanding when 
it came down to the GO Zone housing credits. All of the GO Zone package 
was put in the bill except for the $42 million--
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used a minute.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. OK. I will take 30 more seconds of my time--except for 
the $42 million that applies to low-income housing tax credits. So the 
entire GO Zone package--$800 million for the gulf coast--was put in. 
This little $42 million was left out. It was a mistake. The only way to 
fix that today is to get unanimous consent. I will be asking for that 
in just a few minutes.
  I thank the Presiding Officer and yield back and reserve the 
remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, in a moment, I am going to ask unanimous 
consent that it be in order to call up my amendment No. 4787 to the 
motion to concur in the House amendment.
  My amendment would restore the estate tax exemption level and top 
estate tax rates to their 2009 levels of $3.5 million and 45 percent, 
respectively. It would leave all the other modifications to the estate, 
gift, and so-called generation-skipping transfer taxes the same as they 
appear in the underlying amendment.
  Raising the estate tax exemption level to $5 million and lowering the 
rate to 35 percent is not the responsible thing to do given our current 
fiscal situation, and it would only exacerbate widening wealth 
inequality in America. Only 3 of every 1,000 decedents have estates in 
excess of $3.5 million.
  At a time when some people are seriously discussing cutting Social 
Security, which is relied upon by so many millions of Americans, how 
can Congress consider this action to benefit the top three-tenths of 1 
percent of the population?
  While we don't have an estimate of the savings to the Treasury from 
this amendment, we do know it would save our Treasury tens of billions 
of dollars, which we need to help continue unemployment insurance, 
Social Security, and other critical programs.
  Whether one agrees with this amendment or not, this is an amendment 
which should be debated. The Senate should have an opportunity to 
debate this issue. Unless we get unanimous consent, the way this is 
currently structured, the Senate will be denied this opportunity. 
Whether people support it, oppose this estate tax change or don't know, 
the way the Senate ought to operate is we should have a chance to vote 
on this amendment.


                       Unanimous Consent Request

  So I now ask unanimous consent that it be in order to call up my 
amendment No. 4787 to the motion to concur in the House amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. BARRASSO. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I would appreciate it if at the end of 
9\1/2\ minutes you could alert me, please.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will do so.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, let me begin by adding Senators 
Whitehouse and Begich as cosponsors of this amendment No. 4809.
  As I think many people know, I have been extremely critical of the 
agreement struck between the President and the Republican leadership. I 
have spoken out against it and I voted against cloture just yesterday. 
It is one thing to be critical of a proposal; it is another thing to 
come up with a better alternative, and I think I have done that today.
  I believe the amendment I am offering is a significant improvement 
over the agreement struck between the President and the Republican 
leadership, and I hope very much we can get strong bipartisan support 
for it. Let me very briefly tell my colleagues what it does.
  First, as I think most Americans appreciate, at a time of a 
recordbreaking deficit and a $13.7 trillion national debt, it makes 
very little sense to be providing huge tax breaks to the wealthiest 
people in our country. It drives up the national debt and forces our 
kids to pay higher taxes in the future to pay off that national debt. 
This amendment ends--it ends--all the Bush tax breaks for the 
wealthiest 2 percent of Americans beginning on January 1 of this year.
  What does it do with the savings? That is perhaps the most important 
point I wish to make. Over the long term, this amendment would devote 
half the revenue raised by this provision--by eliminating the tax 
breaks for the top 2 percent--to reduce the deficit. Half that money 
goes to deficit reduction, which I hope appeals to many of

[[Page 22012]]

my Republican friends who have consistently and appropriately talked 
about high deficits and the danger of those high deficits to this 
country. Half the savings by eliminating tax breaks for the wealthy 
goes to deficit reduction. What does the other half go to? It seems to 
me that while we should be and must be concerned about the deficit, we 
must also understand we continue to be in a major recession. Millions 
of our fellow Americans are unemployed. We have to do everything we can 
to create decent-paying jobs and put those people back to work.
  What the other half of the savings does is invests in our 
infrastructure. I don't have to tell anybody here our infrastructure is 
crumbling. So it will go to repairing our roads, our bridges, schools, 
dams, culverts, housing, and transforming our Nation's energy sector. 
We need to put billions of dollars into building a 21st century rail 
system. When we do that, we not only create jobs now--and this is the 
fastest way I know to create jobs--we make our country more productive 
and internationally competitive in the future. If we do not build our 
infrastructure, if it continues to crumble--and the engineers out there 
tell us we need trillions of dollars of investment--we are going to 
lose our place in the global economy. So we have to invest in 
infrastructure. Half the savings does just that.
  In addition, this amendment replaces the payroll tax holiday with a 
1-year extension of the Making Work Pay credit. In other words, we are 
giving targeted tax breaks to the middle class, not reducing payroll 
taxes for millionaires and Members of Congress. This proposal would not 
endanger Social Security and, in fact, it would go to the people who 
most need it. It would be a lot fairer because lower income people 
would do better. Upper income people would not get it.
  It also addresses a concern I think many Americans have; that is, 
diverting money away from the payroll tax endangers the long-term 
solvency of Social Security. As Eric Kingson, the cochair of the 
Strengthen Social Security campaign, an organization representing tens 
of millions of senior citizens and workers, recently said:

       Extending and expanding the Making Work Pay tax credit is 
     far superior to the payroll tax cut for most Americans. The 
     Making Work Pay tax credit is more stimulative, fairer in 
     distribution, imposes no new administrative costs to 
     employers and includes over 6 million public sector employees 
     who will receive nothing from the payroll tax cut. And it 
     doesn't run the risk of undermining Social Security's 
     financing and the economic security of working Americans . . 
     .

  So it addresses that issue as well.
  Third, this amendment addresses another issue I know a lot of people 
in this country have concern about; that is, the estate tax giveaway in 
the underlying bill, by inserting in its place the 2009 estate tax rate 
for 2 years. Let's be clear. The estate tax only applies to the top 
three-tenths of 1 percent. What we are doing now is not lowering estate 
tax and raising exemptions which only benefit the very wealthiest 
people in this country; what we are doing now is bringing us back to 
the 2009 estate tax rates for 2 years.
  Further, this amendment addresses an issue that, to me, is very 
important, and I know to many Members here, because we had a lot of 
support for it when I brought up this amendment last week. As the 
Presiding Officer well knows, our seniors who are on Social Security 
and disabled vets have not received a COLA in the last 2 years. A lot 
of those folks are trying to get by on $14,000, $15,000, $16,000 a 
year. What this amendment also includes is a $250 COLA for over 57 
million American senior citizens, veterans, and persons with 
disabilities. Without this provision, seniors, as I mentioned, would be 
going through their second year without a COLA, and I think that is 
unfair.
  Further, of course, this amendment would keep all of what I consider 
to be the positive aspects of the President's agreement with the 
Republicans. Obviously, it would extend middle-class tax cuts for 98 
percent of Americans. It would extend unemployment insurance for 13 
months. It would extend the child tax credit, earned-income tax credit, 
college tax credit expansions included in the Recovery Act.
  So I think what we are doing is bringing forth a far better proposal 
than the agreement struck between the Republicans and the President.
  Let me summarize. It ends tax breaks for the rich, uses half that 
money for deficit reduction and half that money to create millions of 
jobs rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure. It would replace the 
payroll tax holiday, which many people have concerns about; diverting 
money away from Social Security with a 1-year extension of the Making 
Work Pay credit--much more targeted to low- and moderate-income people, 
not to Members of Congress and the richest people in this country and 
not threatening Social Security.
  This amendment would strike the estate tax proposal in the underlying 
bill, and insert the 2009 estate tax rates for 2 years. That is a much 
fairer proposal than giving even more tax breaks for the very 
wealthiest people in this country.
  Lastly, this amendment would provide a $250 COLA for over 57 million 
American senior citizens and disabled veterans and people with 
disabilities. It also includes an extension of the middle-class tax 
cuts for 98 percent of Americans, an extension of unemployment 
insurance for 13 months, an extension of the child tax credit, the 
earned income tax credit, and the college tax credit expansion.
  This is the alternative many Americans wish to see. It creates jobs, 
cuts the deficit, and it is much fairer than the underlying bill we 
will vote on.


                           Motion to Suspend

  With that, I move to suspend rule XXII for the purposes of proposing 
and considering amendment No. 4809 to the House message to accompany 
H.R. 4853, and I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion is pending.
  Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana is recognized.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I yield myself 4 minutes under the 
leader's time.
  The Senate is about to pass a bill that should significantly bolster 
our economic recovery. The bill we are about to pass will cut rates for 
families. It will reauthorize unemployment insurance. It will extend 
the child tax credit and the college tuition tax deduction. It will 
extend the research and development tax credit and accelerate 
depreciation for businesses. It will cut payroll taxes for workers.
  These are important provisions. But the bipartisan leadership did not 
include several other important items which I think deserve special 
attention.
  I worked hard to include these provisions in the bill we just passed. 
But some on the other side of the aisle worked to prevent their 
inclusion. These are commonsense provisions and, frankly, I cannot 
imagine how any Senator could oppose them.
  One provision I want to highlight this morning is the provision to 
repeal the 1099 reporting requirements. Small businesses across America 
were disappointed that this provision was not included in the bill. I 
am talking about the repeal of the recently expanded form 1099 
information reporting requirements. Surprisingly, some on the other 
side of the aisle blocked inclusion of a provision to repeal these 
requirements.
  I included a repeal of these requirements in the tax alternative the 
Senate voted on earlier this month. Senator Schumer included repeal of 
this provision in his alternative, as well.
  Several measures to repeal the new rules have received bipartisan 
support. Frankly, repeal of this reporting requirement ought to be a 
no-brainer.
  The new rules take effect at the beginning of 2012. That means many 
small businesses will soon begin spending money to gear up for them. 
Small businesses in Montana and across this Nation should not need to 
spend their time and money to fill out more government paperwork. 
Instead, we should let them focus on staying in business,

[[Page 22013]]

growing their business, and creating jobs.
  Many small business owners have contacted me about this provision. 
Many are puzzled that some Republicans now appear to oppose repeal in 
private, after having advocated repeal in public. I can understand why 
small businesses are puzzled and, frankly, I don't see how any Senator 
can oppose repeal. I intend to keep working on behalf of America's 
small businesses to see that this unrealistic reporting requirement is 
repealed.


                  Unanimous Consent Request--H.R. 4849

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Finance Committee be 
discharged of H.R. 4849; that the Senate proceed to its immediate 
consideration; that the Senate agree to the Baucus amendment to repeal 
the form 1099 reporting requirements, which is at the desk; that the 
bill, as amended, be read the third time and passed; that the motions 
to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that this all occur without 
intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, as the 
Chairman knows, Senator Johanns of Nebraska has proposed a Republican 
alternative on this issue. Would the Senator amend his request to 
substitute the Johanns language?
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I thank my good friend from Wyoming. I 
cannot agree to amend my request in that way because of the excessive 
cuts in appropriated spending in the Johanns amendment. It is way 
beyond repeal of the 1099 requirements. It is a totally different 
animal. Therefore, I cannot agree.
  Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. BARRASSO. I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana is recognized.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I see Senator DeMint here. I know he has 
time allocated to him. I also have 8\1/2\ minutes left. I want to make 
sure I will be able to retain my 8\1/2\ minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana has 7 minutes 
remaining.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. I wish to retain that 7 minutes after Senator DeMint 
speaks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina is recognized.
  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I have a motion at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion is pending.
  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, in a moment, I will move to suspend the 
rules for the purpose of offering my motion to permanently extend the 
current individual income tax rates, finally repeal the death tax once 
and for all, and permanently patch the alternative minimum tax.
  I know a lot of work has gone into this tax compromise. I appreciate 
the fact that both sides have worked so hard to strike a deal. While I 
appreciate the efforts that have been made, I am concerned that the 
bill currently under consideration does not permanently extend tax 
rates and, thus, will have a marginal, if any, benefit to our economy.
  Temporary rates make for a temporary, uncertain economy. My 
substitute amendment ensures a long-term stable economic environment 
for Americans to create jobs, buy a home, invest their assets, save for 
retirement, and preserve their family farm or business.
  We need to stop and consider what we are doing to our country and to 
our economy. We are the premier free market economy in the world. Yet 
almost all of our Federal tax rates are temporary. I have been in 
business most of my life, and I understand a lot about how free markets 
work, how businesses plan--usually in a 5- or 10-year window, looking 
at their bottom line. How many people can they afford? Can they build a 
new plant? Now they are looking at whether or not to do it in the 
United States or all over the world.
  But now in our country, we have a temporary, uncertain Tax Code that 
makes it very difficult for businesses to plan. And it is not just with 
the Tax Code. For the last several years, we have waited until December 
to tell doctors what we are going to pay them to see Medicare patients 
the next year. How do they plan their staff and their offices? We know 
some have already laid people off, not knowing what they are going to 
get paid next year.
  Free markets, free enterprise works within a framework of a rule of 
law, where people know what their taxes will be, what the laws will be, 
what the regulatory environment will be. But in America today, if we 
take this compromise, almost all of the tax rates are either 1 year or 
2 years, and then people can expect them to go up or change.
  We cannot operate the world's largest economy in this type of 
environment. Washington does not have a tax revenue problem, it has a 
spending problem. We must let all working Americans keep their hard-
earned money, not just for a year or two, but allow people actually to 
look out and see, can they make those car payments for 4 or 5 years? 
Can they make those house payments for 15, 20, or 30 years? They need 
to know what their tax rates are going to be.
  We must repeal the immoral death tax once and for all. It is zero 
this year, but the proposed compromise will have it at 35 percent for 
any estate over $5 million next year. That may sound like a much better 
deal than we would have had. But even with that, the estimates are that 
this could cost 850,000 jobs to let this tax re-emerge.
  We must commit ourselves to recovering from our years of 
overspending, overtaxing, and overreaching. The American people deserve 
better. They told us so in the November elections.


                           Motion to Suspend

  According to rule V of the Standing Rules of the Senate, I move to 
suspend rule XXII for the purpose of proposing and considering 
amendment No. 4804 to permanently extend the 2001 and 2003 individual 
income tax rates, permanently repeal the estate tax, and permanently 
patch the alternative minimum tax. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time and 
yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana is recognized.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Seven minutes.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. I will take two of them now and then reserve the 
remainder of my time. We only have, under the agreement arrived at 
between Leader Reid and Leader McConnell, 15 minutes to correct this 
mistake. At 12 o'clock, we are going to have to vote on several issues. 
This is not one of them because this is not an amendment; this is a 
mistake. I only have 15 minutes to correct it. I will try to explain 
again how important it is.
  There are $890 billion worth of amendments and projects in the bill 
we are about to vote on. Within that, there is a package of $800 
million in GO Zones, which was put together by me and my colleagues 
from the Gulf Coast. We fashioned it and created it. We are proud of 
it. It was supposed to be part of this much larger package. Lo and 
behold, all of it found its way in--except for $42 billion for low-
income housing. That was the only thing left out of the GO Zones. 
Senator Vitter, myself, Senator Shelby, Senator Sessions, Senator 
Wicker, and Senator Cochran have cosponsored a one-line provision. This 
isn't an amendment to the bill; it is a provision to fix a mistake that 
has been acknowledged by the Finance chair, and actually by the 
Republican negotiators. They meant to include it, but they didn't 
because in order to include it, the low-income housing tax credits to 
build these units have to go to 2012. Everything else in the bill is 
2011. But they knew if they didn't extend it to 2012 that we can't 
build these projects, and these projects and their financing will be in 
jeopardy.
  There are 77 projects across the gold coast for seniors, for the 
disabled, and for the working poor. These projects are transforming the 
city of New Orleans, the gulf coast, Waveland, and Biloxi, not just for 
the people living there

[[Page 22014]]

 but for the neighborhoods surrounding them.
  Finally, Mr. President, Tim Geithner supports this as does Secretary 
Donovan support it.
  Mr. President, I will reserve my time in hopes that before my time is 
up we can get this fixed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Louisiana.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 3 minutes remaining.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, I see the Senator from Montana, the Finance Committee 
chair on the Senate floor, along with Mr. Kyl, the Senator from 
Arizona, who has been one of the chief negotiators on the package, and 
the Senator from Louisiana, Mr. Vitter. Before we get to the time 
allotted for voting, I would like to say again how important it is to 
try to get this provision and the underlying bill corrected. It is a 
technical correction that we are asking for to allow a placed-in-
service date to be extended from January 1, 2012, to January 1, 2013--a 
1-year extension to finish the low-income housing projects that are 
underway not only in New Orleans but along the gulf coast.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
a Times-Picayune editorial dated today in support of this and a New 
York Times editorial of March 2, as well as a letter of support from 
Secretary Donovan and Secretary Geithner testifying to the importance 
of these projects.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                [From the Times-Picayune, Dec. 15, 2010]

                         Extend Go Zone to 2012

       New Orleans and other parts of South Louisiana will likely 
     lose important recovery projects, including thousands of 
     prospective housing units, if Congress fails to extend the 
     Gulf Opportunity Zone tax credits for two more years.
       The credits, which were created after Hurricane Katrina to 
     foster investment in our region, require housing financed by 
     Go Zone bonds to be ``placed in service'' by Dec. 31. But the 
     collapse of credit markets in 2008 and delays in public and 
     private financing meant that many important projects could 
     not get under way early enough to meet that deadline.
       The tax compromise negotiated this month by the Obama 
     administration and congressional Republicans would extend 
     portions of the Go Zone credits, but only for one year That's 
     not enough to make many projects viable.
       Metro area officials and housing advocates say about 2,800 
     housing units could be at risk in metro New Orleans alone if 
     only a one-year extension is granted. That includes plans to 
     redevelop some of the former Big Four housing projects, which 
     have been demolished and are set to be replaced by mixed-
     income, lower-density housing. That would not only leave many 
     low-income New Orleanians without housing options, it also 
     would cost construction jobs.
       Louisiana Sens. Mary Landrieu and David Vitter are trying 
     to change the extension in the tax compromise from one year 
     to two. The White House and congressional leaders from both 
     parties should support their efforts.
       President Obama and congressional leaders have pledged to 
     support the rebuilding of our region, and our region needs 
     the two-year extension of Go Zone credits to make sure 
     important recovery projects get done. The White House and 
     Congress need to make sure the extension to 2012 is approved.
                                  ____


                [From the New York Times, Mar. 2, 2010]

                            An Essential Fix

       The recession dealt a devastating blow to the post-Katrina 
     rebuilding effort in the Gulf states, where scores of 
     affordable housing projects have been placed in jeopardy. 
     Congress can revive the rebuilding effort by extending the 
     deadline for a tax credit program that is supposed to 
     encourage developers and investors to take on these 
     desperately needed projects.
       Nearly all affordable rental housing in this country is 
     built with federal tax credits. After Hurricanes Katrina and 
     Rita, Congress allotted Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama 
     more than $300 million in low-income housing tax credits, 
     slightly more than two-thirds of which has been used. At 
     first, these credits, and projects, were hotly sought after. 
     Demand dropped sharply as corporate profits fell and 
     businesses had smaller and smaller tax liabilities.
       As the economy has improved, interest in the credits seems 
     to be picking up in many places--but not in the Gulf. That's 
     partly because of a provision in the Gulf Opportunity Zone 
     law that requires projects in the region to be ready for 
     occupancy by the end of this year. That leaves just 10 
     months--instead of the 18 months that investors like to see--
     for the deals to be sealed and the housing built. Projects 
     that miss the ready-for-occupancy date, because of all-too-
     common weather delays or construction problems, would lose 
     the tax credit.
       Senator Mary Landrieu, a Democrat of Louisiana, has 
     introduced an amendment that would extend the occupancy date 
     by two years. Unless Congress moves quickly to pass it, the 
     Gulf states could potentially lose financing for more than 70 
     housing projects and 6,000 units of affordable housing. The 
     loss would be especially devastating for New Orleans, which 
     is desperately short of housing for the low-income workers 
     who are essential to the city's service economy.
       The more Congress dithers, the more likely it becomes that 
     tax credit investors will look outside the Gulf states for 
     places to put their money. This is an easy fix--and a 
     critical one.
                                  ____

                                                    March 2, 2010.
     Hon. Mary L. Landrieu,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Landrieu: Thank you for your letter of 
     February 25, 2010, regarding the extension of the Gulf Coast 
     Opportunity Zone (GO Zone) Low Income Housing Tax Credit 
     (LIHTC) placed-in-service date. Please be assured that the 
     Administration understands the critical need for the 
     extension of the GO Zone tax credits, and also the negative 
     impact that failing to extend the credits would have on New 
     Orleans and other communities impacted by Hurricanes Katrina 
     and Rita as they continue recovery efforts. You should also 
     be assured that the Administration supports an extension of 2 
     years to December 31, 2012, of the GO Zone placed-in-service 
     date and is committed to working with Congress to see that 
     the extension is enacted as soon as possible.
       As you mentioned in your letter, the economic activity 
     spurred by the GO Zone credits has played an important 
     simulative role in the rebuilding of the Gulf Coast. These 
     tax credits have fostered development in devastated areas and 
     have enabled the return of people who love their communities 
     and who are the drivers of local economies throughout the 
     Gulf Coast. GO Zone projects have created jobs and stimulated 
     the economic recovery in these areas. In New Orleans, 
     specifically, the tax credits have played a central role in 
     leveraging the financing needed to complete the rebuilding of 
     the Big Four public housing developments: St. Bernard, C.J. 
     Peete, Lafitte, and B.W. Cooper. The revitalized developments 
     have not only spurred activity surrounding construction and 
     will restore essential affordable housing, but have also 
     encouraged the establishment of new businesses and improved 
     civic life around these developments.
       Since the beginning of the Administration, President Obama, 
     Vice President Biden, Dr. Jill Biden, 13 other members of the 
     Cabinet, and numerous agency heads, assistant secretaries, 
     and other senior level administration officials have visited 
     New Orleans and the wider Katrina- and Rita-impacted area to 
     see firsthand the scale of the recovery challenges that 
     remain. Our respective agencies have made significant 
     investments of staff and funding to support the recovery 
     efforts. Many of these programs continue to provide 
     meaningful resources to disaster survivors and the 
     communities being rebuilt. Through these visits, we have come 
     to recognize the dire impact that failing to extend this tax 
     credit would have on Gulf Coast communities and individual 
     families, many of whom were the hardest hit by Hurricanes 
     Katrina and Rita and the recent recession. Not extending the 
     GO Zone placed-in-service date would result in a major 
     setback for the recovery, and would impact public housing 
     residents, business, and communities. It would be 
     unconscionable to let the work that has created so much 
     progress, and so much hope, go unfulfilled.
       We will continue to urge members of Congress to extend the 
     GO Zone placed-in-service date and stand firmly behind such 
     an extension. We are confident that with your help we will 
     see the extension signed into law, and with it, continued 
     economic activity and community revitalization in the Katrina 
     affected Gulf Coast.
           Sincerely,
     Timothy F. Geithner,
       Secretary of the Treasury.
     Shaun Donovan,
       Secretary of Housing and Urban Development.

  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I would like to ask at this time if 
Senator Baucus and then Senator Kyl and then Senator Vitter might 
comment--I see them on the Senate floor--about the importance of 
getting this fixed and the likelihood of us doing it today and what 
might happen as we move forward.
  Senator Baucus.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I think our colleague has the floor to speak.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.

[[Page 22015]]


  Mr. VITTER. I thank the Chair, and I certainly join my colleague from 
Louisiana in stressing the importance of this second year of a GO Zone 
extension and look forward to continuing to work with all of these 
folks in getting that done absolutely as soon as possible in 2011.
  I emphasize one major point, which is that this is not a new benefit 
to fund new projects which were never envisioned when the GO Zone was 
initially created. This is simply an extension to fund those crucial 
projects which were at the center of this provision from the very 
beginning and that have taken longer than was initially forecast 
because of labor and other shortages after Hurricane Katrina. So this 
is simply a time extension to get the very same crucial projects done, 
not to add on to that list.
  These projects are extremely important, including the wholesale 
renovation and reconstruction of four major housing projects in New 
Orleans post-Katrina that are being done using a dramatically different 
and better model--mixed income, lower density--not the old-style 
housing projects from the 1940s and 1950s which were, in my opinion, a 
horrible social experiment.
  So I certainly join this effort, and I have been working with all of 
these folks to try to get this second year extension in this tax bill. 
Unfortunately, we weren't able to do that because of a general decision 
that was apparently made that none of the extenders would go beyond the 
end of 2011. But working with these folks, and particularly Senator 
Kyl, we came to an agreement that we would absolutely work to include 
this in the first possible technical corrections or other measure that 
would be keyed up in early 2011.
  I thank everyone, particularly my Republican colleague, John Kyl, for 
that willingness and that commitment, and I look forward to getting 
that done at the earliest possible moment.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I would like that time charged to the 
other side.
  Senator Baucus.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, both the Senators from Louisiana have 
stated the case very well and, frankly, this is not a typical extender. 
This is just a very important proposal where the placed-in-service date 
has to be changed because projects beyond the year could not be put in 
place the second year. So it is not a traditional extender where we 
extend for 1 or 2 years some other provision. This is more in the 
nature of what was started in the first year gets accomplished in the 
second year, and that is why this 1-year add-on is so important.
  I will work with the Senators and the Finance Committee, when we 
bring up legislation next year, to do our very best to make sure this 
provision is included so we can help these people who are desperately 
in need of housing in Louisiana.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Does the Senator have any idea about the time? I would 
like to see if Senator Kyl can say a word on this because his views are 
very important.
  Mr. BAUCUS. I will add that my view would be at the earliest possible 
opportunity. I don't know when that is exactly, but it is something 
that should be placed high up, near the very top.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Sometime in January or February?
  Mr. BAUCUS. Well, I hope. The Senator knows how this place operates, 
but it is certainly very, very, very early.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Senator Kyl?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. KYL. I thank my colleagues for bringing this issue to the 
attention of the Senate. Senator Vitter brought this matter to my 
attention as the bill was being wrapped up, as a matter of fact, and I 
told him at that time that while we could not provide an extension 
longer than the one in the tax bill, I would work with him early in 
2011 to help these projects obtain the necessary extension. I say the 
very same thing to the senior Senator from Louisiana today.
  I also share the confidence of the chairman of the Finance Committee 
that we will find an appropriate tax bill early in 2011 to include this 
change, which I agree we all view as a technical change, that will 
allow this special financing to be used as Congress intended it.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I have a question for Senator Kyl.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Is it his understanding now, having had several 
conversations with Senator Vitter and myself, that this technical 
correction is perceived only to be limited to the 77 low-income 
housing, mixed-income projects through the gulf coast? Is that his 
understanding?
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I would say to the Senator from Louisiana 
that I don't know technically whether it is 77 or 42 or whatever, but 
we have all discussed the fact that it is limited to those projects 
that are started but couldn't be completed within the 1-year extension 
and, therefore, would require the second extension, and it is limited 
to this area, yes.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. And is it the Senator's intention to push for a tax 
bill? He was so successful in pushing this tax bill forward. Is it his 
intention to do that in early January, mid-January, early February?
  Mr. KYL. I would say to my colleague that I asked the chairman of the 
Finance Committee: How quickly do you think we could do this? He gave 
me the same answer he just gave you: Yes, as soon as we can, but it is 
hard to make a commitment about a tax bill coming to the floor.
  As I also told the senior Senator from Louisiana, there are some 
other reasons we have to act quite quickly next year in dealing with 
some technical fixes to other aspects of the tax bill. So there are 
other reasons to act quickly as well as this particular situation.
  Ms. LANDRIEU. Well, I would just say--with about 30 seconds left--
that I am encouraged, Mr. President, from what I have heard from the 
Senate Finance Committee chair and the chief negotiator on tax issues 
on the Republican side that they recognize this is a technical 
correction. They recognize it is limited to low-income housing. They 
recognize the importance of these projects, and they have committed to 
working on fixing this as early as possible in the next Congress. I 
think that gives it a glimmer of hope.
  We would not get unanimous consent today because there remain 
objections on the other side of the aisle, but I think we can move 
forward with confidence knowing Senator Kyl is good on his word and 
Senator Baucus is good on his word and they will try to fix this at the 
earliest possible date.
  I thank the Senator from Arizona and the Senator from Montana.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  The Senator from Oklahoma.


                           Motion to Suspend

  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I move to suspend rule XXII, including any 
germaneness requirements, for the purposes of proposing and considering 
amendment No. 4765, and I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's motion is pending. Is there a 
sufficient second? There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays are ordered.
  The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that all 
subsequent votes after the first vote be 10 minutes in duration; 
further, that prior to the vote on the motion to concur there be 2 
minutes for debate equally divided and controlled between the two 
leaders or their designees.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, this amendment is based on the absurd 
premise that the unemployment insurance benefits piece alone must be 
paid for, lest we contribute to the deficit. Never mind that this 
entire package contributes $858 billion to the deficit, of which only 
$51 billion is accounted for by the UI extension provision. It is clear 
that this amendment is not about deficit reduction; rather, it is about 
attacking programs that make a real difference to the everyday lives of 
our

[[Page 22016]]

constituents. Meanwhile, this amendment leaves the tax benefits to the 
wealthiest Americans, those who need the least assistance, completely 
intact.
  Let me be clear. There are a few ideas proposed in this amendment 
that make some sense. However, as part of the Appropriations 
Committee's annual and ongoing oversight responsibilities, the 
committee has already rescinded unobligated balances from those 
programs or reduced their funding for fiscal year 2011 as part of the 
fiscal year 2011 omnibus, which the Senate will consider this week. 
Every recommendation in the omnibus was made in collaboration with 
Republican members of the Appropriations Committee, based on a detailed 
analysis. These decisions were not made rashly, nor because they might 
sound good in a press release.
  Too often when the Senate debates cuts in unobligated balances, the 
proponents want to ignore the consequences of their recommendations and 
focus on broad generalizations. But in reality these cuts can cause 
serious problems. Accordingly, let me highlight the impact of a few of 
the programmatic cuts proposed by the Senator from Oklahoma.
  For example, this amendment would require each Department to cut its 
workforce by 10 percent over 10 years, without considering the impact 
of the cuts. It seems as though Federal workers have become the newest 
punching bag for a few of our colleagues. FDA staff, necessary to 
ensure that the food we eat and the drugs we take are safe and 
effective, would be cut by nearly 1,000. The staff of the Food Safety 
and Inspection Service would be cut by an additional 1,000. These cuts 
are irresponsible and would put the American public at unnecessary risk 
at a time of breakthrough medical research when important new drugs are 
being produced and must be monitored. When more of our food supply is 
coming from around the world, preventing contamination is more 
important than ever.
  More than 95 percent of the 280,000 employees of the Department of 
Veterans Affairs either work for the Veterans Health Administration or 
the Veterans Benefits Administration. To reduce the VA's overall 
employees by 28,000 over 10 years would mean that doctors, dentists, 
hospital administrators, and benefits claims processors would have to 
be reduced. As more and more of our veterans are returning home from 
Iraq and Afghanistan, this is not the time to be cutting their service 
providers.
  This amendment would require a reduction of 600 to 800 Government 
Accountability Office staff, as well as a reduction in travel that is 
necessary for the GAO to conduct audits and evaluations. Travel is 
critical to GAO's ability to meet the requirements of Congress.
  Rescinding funds from the FBI, DEA, ATF, and U.S. Marshals will not 
prevent waste, fraud, and abuse. Instead, cutting funding for these 
agencies means cutting agents who are serving on the front lines 
keeping our Nation safe from terrorist threats and cyber attacks, 
reducing the flow of drugs, and combating gun-related violence along 
the southwest border, strengthening immigration enforcement, and 
keeping children safe from sexual predators. That is the real impact of 
this proposal.
  The 15-percent budget cut to the Executive Office of the President 
might sound reasonable, but it would cut key staff of the Council of 
Economic Advisers, the National Security Council, and the Homeland 
Security Council. This would severely hamper the President's ability to 
coordinate critical economic security and national security programs 
across the entire Federal Government. It would be particularly 
devastating considering that the rest of the Federal Government would 
also be shedding a significant number of staff under the Coburn 
amendment, leaving agencies currently managing the economic crisis and 
our national and homeland security programs not only short-staffed but 
also in chaos due to minimized leadership.
  The Coburn amendment also would eliminate the State grant for the 
Safe and Drug-Free Schools Program. The Congressional Budget Office has 
previously recommended this action. However, this suggestion comes a 
year too late. The Committee on Appropriations removed $295 million in 
funding for the State formula grant funding from the 2010 
appropriations bill. There is no ending for the State grants program in 
the 2011 bill. The Appropriations Committee has already made this cut.
  The Coburn amendment would also rescind $4 billion in fiscal year 
2011 for U.S. development and humanitarian programs in the world's 
poorest countries, from Haiti to Afghanistan. This would cut funding 
for programs for refugees and victims of natural disasters from Darfur 
to Pakistan; it would affect global health programs including HIV/AIDS 
prevention and treatment that mean life or death for millions of 
people; and it would weaken programs to support food security and 
nutrition, clean water, sanitation, and basic education, and to combat 
human trafficking, in countries where 95 percent of new births are 
occurring and over 2 billion people barely survive on less than $2 per 
day. The short-term effects of such a reduction in funding would be 
severe, the long-term effects would be devastating, and ultimately it 
would exacerbate global problems that directly affect U.S. security.
  The amendment proposes to rescind funds focused on returning 
contaminated sites to productive use. The Brownfields Program has a 
track record of successfully restoring damaged properties--often in 
physically and economically distressed neighborhoods--to sources of 
economic growth, creating jobs for lower income people in the process. 
Many of our cities are among those communities hardest hit by the 
economic recession. Now is not the time to stall the cleanup of 
brownfields.
  This amendment authorizes the Secretary of the Army in consultation 
with other Federal agencies to determine the definition of ``low 
priority'' Army Corps projects. This appears to be code for those 
projects not requested in the President's budget. Since when has the 
administration been the only source of wisdom for determining funding 
decisions? If there is surplus funding available, we should ask the 
Corps to identify those funds and propose them for rescission. However, 
it would become quickly apparent that this strategy is penny wise and 
pound foolish. These are all ongoing projects, previously funded by 
this or prior Congresses. It would not make economic sense to stop 
these projects. Demobilization costs and costs to make these 
construction sites safe for the public could end up costing more than 
continuing the projects.
  These are just a few examples of the damage that would be done if 
this reckless amendment was actually agreed to. But I would conclude by 
saying that every Member of this Chamber who supports the tax cut deal 
should vote against the amendment being offered by the Senator from 
Oklahoma for the simple reason that it seeks to change the tax package, 
which reflects an agreement between the Republican leader and the 
President of the United States. The Republican leadership signed off on 
this deal because many of the provisions they wanted were included in 
exchange for a 13 month extension of unemployment insurance benefits 
with no offset. I would certainly hope that they will stand by their 
agreement.
  Mr. President, this amendment would do serious damage to many 
necessary government programs. Unobligated does not mean excess or 
unnecessary. I urge all my colleagues to reject the Coburn amendment.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I am voting for the Coburn motion to 
suspend the rules to allow the Senate to consider his amendment to 
offset extension of unemployment benefits because we must be able to 
discuss ways to start bringing down the deficit. Senator Coburn's 
amendment provides a fiscally responsible way to extend unemployment 
insurance for out-of-work Americans and to pay for other costs 
contained in the tax bill.
  With the underlying agreement in the tax bill to extend current tax 
rates for 2 years, individuals and businesses will have more certainty 
on tax policy.

[[Page 22017]]

This is needed to spur economic growth and job creation. Senator 
Coburn's amendment takes the next important step to begin reducing 
spending to deal with the deficit. The Senate deserves an opportunity 
to debate and vote on the Coburn amendment so that we can begin this 
process.
  I spoke with Senator Coburn about an item in his amendment that would 
rescind NASA funding for Constellation systems. I strongly oppose this 
provision, which would significantly disrupt the authorization law we 
passed in September. NASA is expressly continuing some elements of the 
Constellation program such as the crew exploration vehicle in order to 
shorten the time for building the new launch vehicle that will propel 
human space exploration beyond Earth orbit. Terminating those contracts 
before they can be transitioned to support the new direction Congress 
has mandated would force NASA to start over, delaying development of 
the new launch vehicle, greatly increasing its costs to the American 
tax payer. It could also jeopardize the full use of the space station 
for scientific research. Senator Coburn has agreed to revisit this 
provision in the future, in an effort to assure scientific integrity.
  All time has expired. The question now is on agreeing to the Coburn 
motion to suspend with respect to amendment No. 4765. The yeas and nays 
have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Begich) is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 47, nays 52, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 273 Leg.]

                                YEAS--47

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brown (MA)
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagan
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Kirk
     Kyl
     LeMieux
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Risch
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Tester
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Wicker

                                NAYS--52

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Brown (OH)
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Conrad
     Coons
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Manchin
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Nelson (FL)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Begich
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 47, the nays are 
52. Two-thirds of the Senators voting, a quorum being present, not 
having voted in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
  Under the previous order, the question is on agreeing to the DeMint 
motion to suspend with respect to amendment No. 4804. The yeas and nays 
have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 37, nays 63, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 274 Leg.]

                                YEAS--37

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Kyl
     LeMieux
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Nelson (NE)
     Risch
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Thune
     Vitter
     Wicker

                                NAYS--63

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Brown (MA)
     Brown (OH)
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coons
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kerry
     Kirk
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Manchin
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Hagan). On this vote, the yeas are 37, 
the nays are 63. Two-thirds of the Senators voting, a quorum being 
present, not having voted in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
  Under the previous order, the question is on agreeing to the Sanders 
motion to suspend with respect to amendment No. 4809. The yeas and nays 
have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 43, nays 57, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 275 Leg.]

                                YEAS--43

     Akaka
     Begich
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Brown (OH)
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Conrad
     Coons
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Harkin
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--57

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennet
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brown (MA)
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagan
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Kirk
     Kohl
     Kyl
     LeMieux
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     Manchin
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nelson (NE)
     Nelson (FL)
     Pryor
     Risch
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Thune
     Udall (CO)
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Webb
     Wicker
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 43, the nays are 
57. Two-thirds of the Senators voting, a quorum being present, not 
having voted in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
  Under the previous order, amendment No. 4754 is withdrawn.


                            Vote Explanation

  Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, I rise today to provide a brief 
explanation of my absence during the vote on the motion to proceed to 
the Reid-McConnell Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization 
and Job Creation Act of 2010 on December 13.
  I was not in the Senate Chamber for the vote because I was traveling 
back from Oregon, where I had a previous commitment earlier in the day 
to participate in a major summit of the leading businesses and 
political leadership of Oregon looking at ways to revive the Oregon 
economy.
  As I stated publicly prior to the vote, had I been present I would 
have voted against moving forward on the tax cut proposal under the 
circumstances. The package that was brought to the floor will add 
nearly $1 trillion to the national debt and includes major components--
particularly bonus tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires--that the 
Congressional Budget Office has found to be one of the least effective 
means of creating jobs. I could not support moving to this flawed 
package without an opportunity to offer amendments to fix it.
  I continue to strongly support tax cuts for working families and the 
reauthorization of unemployment benefits, and other provisions in this 
bill that would be useful to create jobs and help families and small 
businesses. But I cannot support a bill that forces those same working 
families and small businesses to shoulder responsibility for billions 
more in debt while continuing

[[Page 22018]]

too many of the policies that drove our Nation into record deficits and 
caused financial distress for millions of working families.
  Mr. HATCH. Madam President, I have always pledged to the people of 
Utah that I would fight any tax increase that gives Washington more of 
their hard-earned money to spend. Allowing middle-class families, small 
businesses, and investors to keep more of what they earn, while denying 
this government hundreds of billions in new tax revenue to spend, is 
the right thing to do.
  Opposing this bill is tantamount to supporting massive tax increases 
that threatens our economic future. If this tax relief expires, Utah 
would lose an average of 6,200 jobs each year and household disposable 
income would drop by $2,200. Over 150,000 Utah families would be hit 
with the alternative minimum tax. Small businesses would see their 
marginal tax rates go up by as much as 24 percent and our GDP would 
take almost a 2 percent hit.
  I say to my colleagues in the House who want to change this proposal 
to impose more taxes on American families, you act not only at your own 
peril, but that of the American people. You had 4 years to stop these 
tax hikes, but refused. If you change this package for the worse now, 
with only 2 weeks left in this Congress, I will do everything in my 
power to ensure your changes never pass the U.S. Senate.
  Some argue, why not wait until after January when Republicans control 
the House to get a better deal. I appreciate that position, but that is 
a gamble I am not willing to take. Democrats will retain control of the 
White House and the Senate they will simply drag their feet while 
blaming conservatives. The collateral damage of inaction will be hard-
working families who will see lower paychecks starting on January 1. 
Experts point to the damage to the economy, but I am as concerned about 
the damage to the budgets of Utah families. In this case, tax relief 
denied to all those families, if delayed indefinitely, could be tax 
relief denied.
  I also want to mention the death tax--an insidious tax that 
disproportionately hits small businesses and family farms. This year it 
was fully phased out. From my viewpoint, that is the right policy. But, 
if we don't act, on January 1 it goes back up to what it was in 2000--a 
$1 million threshold and a top rate of 55 percent. The proposal before 
us today includes the bipartisan Lincoln-Kyl compromise.
  That bipartisan proposal puts in place a $5 million threshold--$10 
million per couple--and a top rate of 35 percent. When Republicans were 
in control in 2006, we couldn't even get this proposal through 
Congress. So this is a pretty good deal and to my friend from Arizona, 
Senator Kyl, I applaud his efforts. If Congress fails to act, on 
January 1, 10 times the number of estates will be hit, including 13 
times as manner farm-heavy estates.
  If I had my way, all the income tax rates would be made permanent--
that is the kind of certainty our economy and job creators need. 
Furthermore, I would never extend some of the so-called temporary tax 
provisions that look like tax relief, but in reality are little 
different than welfare through the Tax Code. Far too much new spending 
is mislabeled as tax relief. Thankfully, some of those provisions were 
dropped, like the so-called build America bonds tax credit. We also 
should pay for this extension of unemployment insurance so it doesn't 
add to the debt.
  Lastly, to those who believe that instead of this proposal, we should 
be undertaking wholesale tax reform: you are absolutely right. We need 
to reform our Tax Code to broaden the base while lowering rates to make 
our economy more competitive. But we don't have time to reform the code 
before January 1. As the next lead Republican on the Senate Finance 
Committee, I will lead the fight to simplify the Tax Code, and cut back 
on out-of-control Washington spending. Once we stop these tax hikes, we 
can then begin the long-overdue national discussion about how best to 
overhaul our overly burdensome and inefficient tax system.
  The bottom line is that this package is not perfect. But it does at 
least one very important thing it allows the American people to keep 
more of their hard-earned money and not hand it over to the Federal 
Government.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, the debate over the bill we have before 
us can be boiled down to one simple thing: jobs. Extending middle-class 
tax cuts will help create jobs. Not extending middle-class tax cuts 
would cost jobs. Jobs must be our No. 1 priority. And so we must pass 
this bill.
  We know cutting taxes for middle-class families is one of the most 
effective ways to grow our economy. When working folks keep more of 
their hard-earned money, they pump it back into our economy and support 
jobs.
  This bill also includes a number of other important provisions 
designed to create jobs, and I would like to take a moment to focus on 
one of those provisions--the 1603 grant program that makes resources 
available for renewable power development.
  The 1603 grant program provides renewable energy companies with money 
up front to cover 30 percent of the costs of renewable power 
facilities, such as wind farms and solar projects, and that means jobs.
  According to a study by the independent Lawrence Berkeley National 
Laboratory, the 1603 grant program is responsible for saving 55,000 
American jobs in the wind industry alone.
  It is estimated that 1603 is responsible for helping to produce as 
many as 2,400 megawatts of wind power--about a quarter of all wind 
power installed in 2009. This includes projects such as the Glacier 
Wind Farm near Shelby, MT.
  Before 1603, producers had to rely on Wall Street investors to fund 
their renewable energy projects through a complex system known as tax 
equity financing. Through tax equity financing, Wall Street firms would 
invest in renewable power projects in exchange for tax credits. When 
Wall Street collapsed in 2008, this system of financing collapsed along 
with it, threatening the future of American renewable power.
  So we created 1603 grants in the Recovery Act to bypass Wall Street 
and provide cash directly to renewable power developers. As a result, 
most experts have credited the 1603 program with saving the wind 
industry--and the good-paying American jobs that go along with it.
  The tax equity financing market has begun to recover. But tax equity 
financing is still much more expensive than that provided under 1603, 
and 1603 also provides a greater bang for our taxpayer buck. By cutting 
out expensive Wall Street middlemen, 1603 provides grants directly to 
energy developers to support energy projects and jobs. And 1603 
supports smaller projects that wouldn't have otherwise been financed by 
Wall Street.
  Industry experts predict that extending the 1603 grant program will 
result in 45,000 new American jobs in 2011 in the wind and solar 
industries alone and many more in the geothermal and biomass.
  Supporting renewable power also helps put America back in control and 
puts the United States on a path toward energy independence. And 
supporting renewable power projects today supports even more jobs 
manufacturing wind turbines and solar panels tomorrow. That is why I am 
working hard with leaders in my State to bolster long-term growth in 
the wind sector by bringing wind manufacturing jobs to Montana. Today, 
Montana is poised to begin a significant expansion of the generation 
capacity of our wind resources. Montana's wind energy resources rank in 
the top 5 in the United States, but our State is ranked No. 18 in 
installed capacity. The extension of the 1603 grant program will make 
Montana's wind-generation expansion possible, creating an ideal 
situation for a wind turbine or component manufacturing facility.
  Madam President, we need an energy policy that puts America back in 
control. Extension of the 1603 grant program is just one example of a 
commonsense policy that will create jobs, ramp up American energy 
production, and help us build a wind energy industry in Montana, and 
across America, that will be a cornerstone of our Nation's energy 
independence.

[[Page 22019]]


  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, when the Senate invoked cloture on this 
bill yesterday evening, and adopted the procedure used after cloture, 
those of us who oppose portions of this bill lost any opportunity to 
address the problems we see and seek to repair them. I voted against 
the motion to invoke cloture because I hoped that, if the cloture 
motion failed, the Senate would have a chance to consider a better 
bill, and to improve it through the traditional method of debate and 
amendment.
  That did not happen.
  I have spoken, as have others, about the defects of this proposal. 
Its tax cuts are unwisely skewed toward the wealthy, including an 
estate tax provision that would benefit a few thousand of our most 
fortunate taxpayers at great cost to the Treasury. These benefits for 
the wealthiest among us will not, despite the claims of our Republican 
colleagues, help our economic recovery. Nearly everyone says that 
should be our top priority, and it should be. As a host of economists 
across the ideological spectrum have demonstrated, tax cuts for the 
well-to-do have little impact on economic growth.
  It is not just that these benefits for the wealthiest will have no 
positive impact on our economy. What is worse, the upper income tax 
cuts and estate tax provisions that Republicans support would add more 
than $100 billion to the national debt over the next 2 years. 
Republicans in this Chamber repeatedly tell us that the 2010 election 
was a call for more fiscal restraint. Yet their most significant action 
following that election has been to insist upon tax cuts for the 
wealthy paid for with billions of dollars in borrowed money.
  It is not just the inconsistency of our Republican colleagues that I 
find so troubling. It is that in pursuit of their goal, they are 
holding hostage progress for the American people, not just on tax cuts, 
but on a range of other crucial issues. They tell us they will not 
support tax provisions that help working families unless we also 
include huge giveaways for the wealthy. They tell us we cannot continue 
emergency unemployment benefits unless we also give several times the 
cost of those benefits to the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans. They 
tell us we cannot provide tax relief to help businesses grow and add 
workers unless we also give away more borrowed money to the wealthy.
  And there is more. Republicans have filibustered the defense 
authorization bill, crucial legislation for the good of our troops and 
their families, because we have not yet passed tax cuts for the 
wealthy. They blocked consideration of the New START treaty, a treaty 
supported by past presidents and secretaries of state of both parties, 
a treaty that will make our Nation and the entire globe safer and more 
secure. In an extraordinary letter, all 42 Senate Republicans have said 
they will not allow the Senate to consider any legislation, no matter 
how important, until we give billions in borrowed money to the wealthy 
in the form of tax cuts.
  Despite the flaws in this bill and the process by which it comes 
before us, it has a number of strengths. Greatest among them is the 
extension of emergency unemployment benefits. In my State and others, 
thousands of Americans are without work through no fault of their own, 
and they and their families are depending on us to give them the 
support they need. These benefits are not just critical to those 
families, but they also have a highly stimulative impact on the 
economy. Extending the UI program is the right thing to do. We need to 
do it, and we can do it yet this year, if we stay here and continue 
working, as we should, right through to the new year.
  But even some of the positives in this legislation have significant 
drawbacks. The 2 percent payroll tax cut would be welcomed by working 
families, and could help the economy grow. But it would also cost the 
Treasury more than $110 billion in borrowed money next year. While some 
argue that might still be an acceptable price for boosting economic 
growth, I believe it is very unlikely that Congress will have the will 
to let that tax cut expire next year. Already, some of our Republican 
colleagues are talking of making the cut permanent. That money, 
otherwise lost to the Social Security trust fund, must come from 
somewhere, and I am concerned that it will come from cuts to Social 
Security or other essential programs.
  We can support middle-class families, job-producing businesses and 
the unemployed without unleashing the damage this legislation would do 
to our budget and to economic justice.
  I cannot accept the price Republicans want to extract from us. We 
need not accept it if we have the will to debate and amend this 
legislation and are willing to stay through the end of this year to do 
it. The damage to our fiscal situation and to Social Security, and the 
damage done by continued inequality these tax cuts would perpetuate, is 
unacceptable. Beyond that, I believe it would be a mistake to allow 
Republicans to succeed in their irresponsible brinkmanship, blocking 
aid to working families and the important other business before the 
Senate in order to secure benefits for the wealthiest Americans.
  I fully expect that my Republican colleagues will soon be urging this 
body to rein in the debt. Already, we have seen proposals that would 
seek to remedy our Nation's fiscal crisis by dramatically cutting 
crucial programs, including Social Security. It is not a stretch to 
suggest that the cost of this bill alone will lead some to argue that 
Congress must enact more and deeper cuts to essential programs, 
including Social Security--all so that we can give away money the 
government does not have to the wealthiest few.
  We must stand up and fight against an approach that would sacrifice 
aid to the vast majority of Americans on the altar of unaffordable tax 
cuts for the wealthiest among us. I believe that time should be today. 
And so I will vote against this legislation.
  Ms. SNOWE. Madam President, I rise to express my strong support for 
the tax legislation that will not only enable millions of American 
families to keep more of their paychecks, but will also provide a 
stable and predictable economic platform upon which American businesses 
can operate, and pull our economy from the economic morass of the past 
2 years.
  This legislation certainly cannot remedy all of our economic 
struggles, but it is essential that we provide necessary certainty in 
Federal tax policy, which is the foundation upon which our Nation's 
entrepreneurs make decisions about taking risks, investing in the 
future, and creating jobs. As the end-of-the-year deadline looms for 
the biggest tax increase in history, American employers have been 
retrenching and bracing for the possibility of Washington taking a 
larger share of taxes out of their businesses--and that is inhibiting 
our economic potential at a time when we can least afford to fetter the 
forces of our private sector.
  Frankly, the debate over whether extending these tax provisions is 
the right thing to do is now past. What we are experiencing right now 
is a jobless recovery, which isn't a true recovery at all if you cannot 
find a job or earn a paycheck. For 2 years of debating and legislating 
in Washington about how to fix the economy, our economy should be in 
more than just the ``holding pattern'' Harvard Economics Professor, 
Martin Feldstein, has described. I am afraid that at this historic 
juncture--with the unemployment rate of 9.8 percent, or roughly 15 
million people out of work, poverty in America is at its highest in 
over a generation, and we are experiencing historically low investor 
and consumer confidence--we do not have the luxury to take the gamble 
and increase taxes.
  A consensus has developed among economists and policymakers that 
extending these tax provisions will benefit the economy. Indeed, 
according to the White House, extending these tax provisions will 
result in more than 1.5 million jobs. Back in September, Mark Zandi 
released data indicating that increasing taxes from 33 and 35 percent 
up to 36 and 39.6 percent on small business and high-income taxpayers 
would reduce gross domestic product by 0.4 percent in 2011 and would 
reduce payroll employment by 770,000 jobs by mid-

[[Page 22020]]

2012, precipitating a double-dip recession in the first half of 2011. 
Mr. Zandi is now estimating that this legislation will create 1.6 
million jobs. Further, even the Center for American Progress estimates 
job growth at 2.2 million jobs as a result of this legislation.
  The Congressional Budget Office has been stating since September that 
extending the tax rates through 2012, as this legislation would do, 
would add between 600,000 and 1.4 million jobs in 2011 and between 
900,000 and 2.7 million jobs in 2012. Further, CBO estimates that this 
legislation would enhance the gross national product by 1.1 percent. 
Also back in September, a group of 300 economists recognized this 
reality and sent a letter to Congress imploring an extension of the 
current rules. Perhaps the phrase ``better late than never'' is most 
applicable to the impending passage of this legislation that will avert 
the tax increases that loom a mere 3 weeks away and would lead to a 
double-dip recession, and drive our unemployment rate even higher.
  It is simply long past time that we extend the 2001/2003 tax relief 
and expiring provisions such as the R&D tax credit and the child 
credit. It is incumbent upon this Congress to enact stable tax rules 
that will help Americans to get back to work and plan their lives--our 
political Hippocratic Oath of ``First Do No Harm'' should apply at this 
moment, just as there are glimmers that our national economy is past 
its low ebb. At this juncture we cannot veer onto a dangerous path and 
increase taxes, which is exactly what would happen if this legislation 
does not become law. Indeed, the tax increases scheduled to take effect 
in a matter of 3 weeks would be the biggest tax increase in history--an 
$800 billion tax increase that will be averted by this legislation.
  And the agreement on which this legislation is based is something 
that has been rare in Washington in the last 2 years--a hard fought 
consensus among the leaders of both parties. Both sides of the 
negotiating table were required to make concessions to reach this point 
and, as a result, a significant majority of 83 to 15 voted to move this 
legislation forward.
  Undeniably, one of the key components of this legislation is the 10-
percent tax rate that was a hallmark of the original 2001 legislation. 
While other tax rates have been the object of more heated--and highly 
polarizing--debate, it is undeniable that this 10 percent rate is the 
most significant. If this legislation is not enacted into law, roughly 
27 million tax returns will witness a 50 percent increase in taxes, 
from 10 percent to 15 percent. With consumer spending representing 70 
percent of gross national product, we must be cognizant of how this tax 
increase would eradicate any sign of economic recovery. This is not 
even an issue of individuals bracing for a higher tax bill--on January 
1 employers would withhold more taxes from paychecks leaving less for 
the rent, grocery bills, a tank of gas or utilities.
  Of course, all taxpayers benefit from the initial 10-percent tax 
rate, but for these low-income individuals and families, having the 10-
percent rate revert to a 15-percent rate would be particularly 
burdensome. For individuals making less than $8,000 per year and 
couples making under $16,000, this 10-percent rate is a lifeline. For 
taxpayers slightly higher up the income stream, having this initial 
portion of their income taxed at only a 10-percent rate can 
significantly help reduce their effective tax rate.
  Another hallmark of the 2001 tax legislation that would be extended 
is marriage penalty relief. The initial two tax rates, those at 10 
percent and 15 percent rates, allow for twice the amount of income for 
a married couple than is taxed for an individual, so individuals 
earning up to $34,000 are taxed at 15 percent and couples can earn up 
to $68,000 and still remain in the 15-percent bracket. This was 
certainly not the case before the 2001 law, and thus an extension of 
this provision is nothing short of an imperative for low income and 
middle income married couples today.
  Indeed, if this legislation is not enacted, rather than having up to 
$68,000 taxed at a 15-percent rate, couples would face a 28-percent 
rate on family incomes over $58,200. For families where both the 
husband and wife are working, at a 28-percent rate rather than a 15-
percent rate, that second income starts to face diminishing returns all 
too quickly--especially if the second income involves placing children 
in expensive day care.
  And speaking of children and daycare, there are two more significant 
provisions in this bill that are being extended--the child tax credit 
and the dependent care tax credit. In 2008, the most recent year for 
which data is available, there were 25,287,874 children claimed for 
child tax credits. As the primary sponsor of the child credit in 2001, 
I am particularly proud of the fact that American families received an 
economic boost of $1,000 for 25 million children. The child tax credit 
benefits working parents and their dependent children and it is 
essential to note that the Maine Children's Alliance of my home State 
reports that, in Maine, 21.8 percent of young children are poor and 
16.5 percent of all children are poor. Currently, these families are 
eligible for a refundable credit--15 percent of earned income capped at 
a maximum of $1,000 per child--once they have earned at least $3,000.
  The legislation we are debating will maintain the threshold--set in 
2009--at $3,000 rather than allowing it to triple to roughly $13,000, 
which would nationally result in millions of low-income working parents 
being excluded from receiving the refundable portion of the tax credit 
altogether, or having their benefit significantly reduced.
  In Maine, for example, the Maine Children's Alliance reports that 
34,651 children who were members of 21,346 families in Maine benefitted 
from this expansion in 2009. This $3,000 threshold is an extraordinary 
one, which was not and is not envisioned to be permanent. Senator 
Lincoln and I have supported bringing the $13,000 threshold down to a 
more sustainable $8,500 level and then indexing that for inflation. In 
the next Congress, when we address tax reform and enter into a full 
negotiation about income tax burdens, I will be attentively working to 
ensure that tax policies for working families with children are 
progressive and mindful of these families' needs.
  The dependent care tax credit is also extended in this legislation. 
This year, the provision allows a taxpayer a 35-percent credit, rather 
than just 30 percent, of child care expenses for children under 13 and 
disabled dependents. The 2001 tax bill increased the amount of eligible 
expenses from $2,400 to $3,000 for one child and from $4,800 to $6,000 
for two or more children.
  Under this legislation, these policies on dependent care will be 
extended for an additional 2 years, through 2012. Again, with Senator 
Lincoln, we have introduced legislation that would have improved rather 
than just maintained the dependent care credit. The most significant of 
these changes would be to increase the thresholds so that up to $5,000 
per child or $10,000 for two or more children would be creditable. The 
legislation would also amend the flexible spending account rules for 
dependent care to increase the amount of pre-tax income that can be set 
aside for dependent care so that it is $7,500 for one dependent and 
$10,000 for two or more.
  Another major component of the legislation before us is relief from 
the alternative minimum tax--or AMT. In fact, the AMT relief in this 
legislation makes up roughly one quarter of all the relief--roughly 
$137 billion for just the 2-year ``patch''--that effectively holds 
harmless taxpayers from the unintended consequences of this alternative 
tax system. This is not taking into account the additional relief that 
holds harmless taxpayers who would otherwise have their child credits 
reduced as a result of the AMT.
  The onerous AMT is tax policy run amok--and I can find no 
policymakers who defend the manner in which it would be imposed on at 
least an additional 21 million taxpayers. AMT is essentially a flat tax 
at 26 and 28 percent tax rates for couples with combined incomes as low 
as $45,000 per year. Perhaps this is the understatement of the year, 
but these are not the super wealthy who were the intended targets

[[Page 22021]]

of this tax. When the 112th Congress addresses the question of 
fundamental tax reform, this reckless component of tax policy must be 
our top single priority to be repealed and rationalized so that the tax 
rate is the tax rate, and we cease to have a parallel tax system that 
is simply out of control.
  As the former chair and now ranking member of the Senate Small 
Business Committee and a senior member of the Senate Finance Committee, 
the issue of how individual tax rates affect small business is of 
profound concern to me. Whether it is on Main Street tours or from 
other constituent contacts with businesses large and small, the 
uncertainty of the Tax Code is the primary issue on the minds of 
business owners and managers. At that December 2 hearing on tax reform 
in the Finance Committee, we were presented data regarding the growth 
in the number of ``flow through'' businesses--those businesses that pay 
tax at the individual tax rates rather than at the corporate rate. 
Since the Tax Reform Act of 1986, but particularly since 2001, the 
growth in this form of ownership has been expanding. Further, we 
learned that S Corporations have supplanted C Corporations as the 
preferred form of business other than sole proprietorships.
  The Joint Committee on Taxation has reported that 50 percent of all 
income in the top two individual income tax brackets is attributable to 
flow-through businesses. These are the entrepreneurial firms that are 
generating the jobs necessary to pull us out of this recession, and it 
is imperative that we not increase taxes on these businesses from 33 
and 35 percent up to 36 and 39.6 percent. According to the National 
Association of Manufacturers, over 70 percent of U.S. manufacturers 
file as S Corporations or other pass-through entities and NAM reports 
that most would be significantly and adversely impacted by increasing 
tax rates to 39.6 percent. Moreover, this legislation will reduce tax 
rates on capital gains and dividends that will boost capital investment 
and economic growth.
  According to the Small Business Administration, small businesses 
employ half of all private sector employees, and generated 65 percent 
of net new jobs over the past 17 years. These flow-through small 
businesses employ 20 million Americans and it is these business owners 
who must reinvest the profits of their businesses to continue serving 
as the economic engines of this Nation. The reinvested profits from a 
business are the lifeblood of these entrepreneurs and, at a time when 
access to capital from lending institutions is still difficult, current 
earnings must be available to business owners rather than sending those 
funds to Washington. Indeed, in the National Small Business 
Association's 2009 Year-End Economic Report, 38 percent of respondents 
to their survey noted Federal taxes as one of the most significant 
challenges to the future growth and survival of their businesses--a 
category trumped only by the ongoing economic uncertainty pervading our 
Nation. Small business owners across America can better deploy this 
capital than can policymakers in Washington.
  Although I believe that this package will demonstrably enhance GDP 
growth and critically lower unemployment, regrettably this package also 
unnecessarily adds to our Federal debt by retaining energy tax policies 
that are quite simply an ineffective use of taxpayers' money. 
Specifically, instead of considering the effectiveness of individual 
energy tax policies scheduled to expire this year, the Tax Relief, 
Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010 
simply extends all policies that had Congress extended previously. By 
that standard the legislation conveniently continues subsidies at their 
current levels for ethanol, biodiesel, refined coal, natural gas and 
oil production--all at a cost of more than $11 billion in lost revenue 
for the Federal Government at a time of record deficits.
  These tax policies were enacted years ago, are extremely costly to 
U.S. taxpayers, and the merits of their extension have not been 
demonstrated to the Senate Finance Committee. In fact, according to a 
July 2010 study by the Congressional Budget Office, the ethanol tax 
credits cost taxpayers $1.78 for each gallon of gasoline consumption 
reduced, and $750 for each metric ton of carbon dioxide equivalent 
emissions avoided. The continuation of this tax credit is an 
ineffective method at reducing our consumption of foreign oil and will 
unfortunately cost taxpayers nearly $5 billion.
  In addition, the legislation extends the 1603 grant program for 
qualified renewable energy projects. While I support renewable energy, 
this program is far from standard tax policy and was developed to be 
timely, targeted and temporary in the American Recovery and 
Reinvestment Act as a direct result of the paralysis of the tax equity 
markets in 2009. Unfortunately, the Finance Committee has not reviewed 
the effectiveness of this policy and, as a result, I am not supportive 
of providing an additional $2.9 billion without government analysis 
demonstrating that this program's extension is an effective use of 
taxpayers' money.
  Again, the decision to include these costly energy provisions was 
made without Finance Committee hearings, mark-ups, discussions, or 
analysis. Energy markets are dynamic and technology develops rapidly--
Congress must demonstrate our capacity to end obsolete energy tax 
policies, and develop effective policies that will improve America's 
energy security.
  It is regrettable that the Middle Class Tax Relief Act includes these 
costly and misguided policies and hope that next year Chairman Baucus 
and Ranking Member Hatch hold Finance hearings to assess the best use 
of tax policy to reduce energy prices in a fiscally responsible manner.
  Finally, I have been an ardent supporter of extended unemployment 
benefits during this economic calamity. At a time when the official 
national unemployment rate is 9.8 percent and 7.4 percent in Maine, and 
many industries and States clearly are experiencing rates that are 
alarmingly higher, it is imperative that we provide a safety net for 
these individuals. Rather than the halting, short term and month to 
month extensions that we have managed this year, the legislation before 
us would provide extended unemployment benefits through 2011--
recognizing that these unemployment numbers are not expected to rebound 
as quickly as any of us would hope.
  I support this legislation to extend current tax relief for two 
additional years. But it is critical to understand that this is merely 
a short term patch and that our Tax Code is woefully outdated, 
mercilessly complicated, and wildly out of control. While the extension 
of these tax rates is a step in the right direction, let us not forget 
that it is only a first step in a long journey to overhaul our broken 
Tax Code as our corporate tax rate is the highest in the world--Japan 
is reforming their tax system--and the Tax Code is so horribly complex 
that, according to the August 2010 report from the President's Economic 
Recovery Advisory Board, that taxpayers spend 7.6 billion hours and 
shell out about $140 billion trying to comply with tax filing 
requirements in 2008, which is roughly equivalent to 1 percent of the 
GDP. Further, the Treasury Department testified at the recent Finance 
Committee tax reform hearing that the instruction book for the primary 
individual income tax form has grown from 52 pages for 1980 to 174 
pages for 2009. The income tax regulations have doubled, from less than 
7,500 pages in 1980 to nearly 15,000 pages today. Between 1980 and 
2008, tax returns filled out using paid preparers have increased from 
38 percent of returns to 58 percent of returns. When software users are 
added in, about 85 percent of individual income tax returns rely on 
some form of assistance, either software used by the taxpayer or a 
practitioner.
  That, my colleagues, is what awaits us in the 112th Congress. I urge 
you to pass this legislation now so that we can focus on the big 
picture in the new year and the new Congress. Indeed, this legislation 
will provide the much needed building blocks for our future efforts.
  The legislation we will pass today gives us a brief but realistic 
window to address the multitude of flaws in the current Tax Code, and I 
have stated

[[Page 22022]]

that my guiding principles for reform are as follows--
  First, we should establish a progrowth Tax Code with the fewest 
number of economic distortions that raises sufficient revenue to 
finance our Nation's spending priorities.
  Second, our Tax Code should be simplified to reduce the burden of 
compliance.
  Third, we must end the fiscal ``shell game'' where we extend tax cuts 
for only a year or two at a time or make them temporary to mask their 
true long-term costs.
  Fourth, the Tax Code should promote savings and investment, the 
drivers of long-term growth.
  Fifth, the Tax Code must not be a barrier to American business 
competitiveness in the global economy. We have the second highest 
corporate tax burden in the industrialized world today.
  Finally, our Tax Code must remain progressive and distribute the tax 
burden fairly.
  With that, I urge my colleagues to extend existing tax relief--and 
plan to move expeditiously to enact a sustainable tax system very soon.
  Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, on Monday, the Senate took an important 
step toward extending critical tax relief for all Americans by 
approving cloture on the Reid-McConnell amendment, by an overwhelming 
vote. This bipartisan vote is encouraging and demonstrates that Members 
of this body can work together, with the President, to do what is 
reasonable and right to address the economic challenges our Nation 
continues to face.
  As with any compromise, however, the bill is not perfect, and I would 
like to note for the record several--although not all--of the items I 
believe should have been handled differently.
  First, I am concerned about the failure to include an extension of 
the production tax credit for existing open-loop biomass facilities. 
This credit is critical for preserving renewable energy and forestry 
jobs in Maine and across the United States, and an extension of this 
credit was included in previous tax proposals. According to the 
American Forest & Paper Association and the Biomass Power Association, 
since the start of 2008, at least 35 paper mills have permanently 
closed and more than 75 other facilities have experienced market-
related downtime. In the biomass sector this year, six facilities have 
closed, three in Maine and three in California, and more are under the 
threat of closure.
  The bill would be improved by extending the tax credit period for 
existing open-loop biomass facilities, as called for by Senator Bill 
Nelson's amendment, which I have cosponsored. This amendment would 
allow these facilities to remain competitive with other forms of 
renewable energy, saving jobs that are seriously at risk.
  Second, I am concerned that the decision by the drafters to strike 
language added to the Tax Code by the American Recovery and 
Reinvestment Act could lead to unnecessary confusion regarding certain 
wood stoves.
  For example, the bill strikes language that I sought in ARRA to 
clarify how the thermal efficiency of residential wood and wood-pellet 
stoves should be measured for purposes of the tax credit in section 
25C. That tax credit was created by the Emergency Economic 
Stabilization Act of 2008, which did not specify a methodology for 
determining thermal efficiency. The IRS has issued guidance directing 
that the ``lower heating value'' methodology should be used, which is 
consistent with industry practices and with our intent to ensure that 
the credit is available for efficient and clean-burning wood and wood-
pellet stoves.
  Removing the reference to the ``lower heating value'' from the code 
serves little purpose. Certainly, however, it does not mean that this 
commonsense methodology is precluded, nor does it require the IRS to 
revisit its methodology. I hope that my comments today will help avoid 
confusion about the use of the ``lower heating value'' methodology with 
respect to this tax credit.
  Finally, I am disappointed that the bill does not hold the line on a 
tax credit for corn-based ethanol and some other special interest 
provisions. The corn-based ethanol tax break is extraordinarily 
expensive, costing some $6 billion in subsidies from taxpayers annually 
according to the Congressional Budget Office. Over recent years we have 
also seen food and feed prices rise as crops have been diverted to 
first generation biofuel production. In addition, corn-based ethanol 
mandates present an environmental concern as they could result in 
energy efficiency losses and increased emissions of air pollutants, 
because mechanical failures can jeopardize the effectiveness of 
emission control devices and systems installed on engines.
  Of course, a bill without these flaws would have been preferable, but 
with the economy still weak, and with unemployment persisting at nearly 
10 percent nationally, now is not the time to be raising taxes, and 
this bill averts one of the largest tax increases in history. America 
needs jobs--not higher taxes.
  In September, I first urged my colleagues and the administration to 
come together around this 2-year compromise that will get us through 
the recession and send a strong signal to the business community to 
invest and create jobs. I am pleased that the Senate has acted to give 
families some confidence and business owners some certainty.
  I encourage my colleagues in the Congress and the President to use 
this 2-year period to undertake comprehensive tax reform to make our 
system fairer, simpler, and more progrowth.
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, I rise to support the tax cut package 
before us today to help middle-class families and workers hit hardest 
by this economy, and that is exactly what this bill will do. It will 
ensure that middle-class taxes don't go up January 1, that laid-off 
workers can provide for their families while they continue to look for 
work, that an average household in my home State will receive $1,400 in 
payroll tax relief, and it will protect 1.6 million middle class New 
Jerseyans from a surprise alternative minimum tax hike of up to $5,600.
  This is an important moment for the middle class in America.
  This is a time to come together, like the Senate did last night, to 
ensure this bill passes and our economic recovery continues. Many 
families are sitting around the kitchen table at night wondering how 
they can afford to feed and clothe their children, much less buy gifts 
for them during this holiday.
  Middle class families are wondering how they are going to pay the 
mortgage. How they are going to pay the tuition for their college-bound 
children next semester.
  I will vote for this package, not because I agree with every 
provision, particularly those that give bonus tax breaks to the 
wealthiest and most able to sacrifice during this economic recession, 
but because it will help families in my State and across this country 
who really do need our help.
  I will vote for this package because, at its core, it is a middle-
class tax relief package.
  I will vote for it because it extends tax relief of more than 3,000 
for a typical working family and doubles the child tax credit from $500 
to $1,000.
  I will vote for it because the $120 billion payroll tax cut is an 
effective way to create jobs and increase the consumer demand sorely 
needed by our Nation's businesses.
  I will vote for it because it includes a 2-year extension of the 
alternative minimum tax relief legislation, which I sponsored, so 1.6 
million New Jerseyans will not face an additional tax bill of up to 
$5,600.
  I will vote for this package because it preserves transit benefits to 
New Jersey commuters. This provision, which was not included in the 
original deal, but I worked hard to restore, will allow commuters to 
receive up to $230 in transit benefits tax free.
  It extends the low-income child tax credit and earned-income tax 
credit to ensure that a working family with three children could 
continue to receive a tax cut of more than $2,000.
  It helps students and their parents by extending the partially 
refundable American opportunity tax credit, worth up to $2,500, that 
helps 8 million

[[Page 22023]]

students and their families cover the cost of tuition.
  It helps save and create green jobs by extending what's known as the 
1603 Treasury grant program, widely credited with maintaining strong 
growth in the renewable energy sector in 2009 and 2010, despite the 
severe economic downturn, and has saved tens of thousands of jobs in 
the wind and solar industries.
  I worked hard to restore this particular provision because it has 
provided more than $66 million in grants to fund 155 solar projects in 
New Jersey alone.
  And most importantly, for those who are unemployed, it includes a 
long-overdue 13-month extension of Federal support for 99 weeks of 
unemployment insurance for workers who have lost their jobs during this 
economic downturn, something our Republican colleagues fought against 
all year, a helping hand they refused to extend unless the rich got 
even more in tax cuts, even though extending unemployment benefits is a 
policy that most economists agree is one of the most effective measures 
to create jobs.
  It helps small business owners by creating the largest temporary 
investment incentive in American history by allowing businesses to 
expense all of their qualified investments in 2011.
  Estimates from the Treasury Department indicate this could generate 
more than $50 billion in additional investment in the U.S. next year.
  The bill includes a provision I cosponsored to incentivize restaurant 
owners to upgrade their facilities by extending for 2 years a provision 
that allows them to write off their costs much faster than they could 
otherwise, 15 years as opposed to 39 years.
  And it helps small business owners by extending for 2 years the 
research and development tax credit which incentivizes companies to 
create jobs in America by giving them a tax credit for qualified 
research spending.
  The R&D tax credit is truly a jobs credit with 70 percent or more of 
the credit attributable to salaries and wages of U.S. workers 
performing research in the United States. I have cosponsored 
legislation to make this credit permanent, and I hope we will.
  Unfortunately, our friends on the other side of the aisle decided 
that if we were going to pass a bill to help the middle class, it could 
not move without additional benefits for the wealthiest.
  In order for us to help the middle class, we are being asked by our 
Republican colleagues to give millionaires an additional windfall.
  In order to pass an extension of desperately needed unemployment 
benefits as emergency spending, we must also pass a windfall for 
estates worth more than $5 million.
  Yes that is correct, apparently now Republicans believe you must 
offset help for laid-off workers with estate tax cuts for the heirs of 
millionaires and billionaires.
  Now, people who have worked hard and built personal wealth should be 
applauded for their success. Their hard work, their creativity, their 
ingenuity should be applauded and admired.
  People who work hard and prosper, they love their country too, and 
they are in the best position to be helpful to our nation in this tough 
economic time.
  Many of them are willing to contribute if we ask, and we know from 
experience that reverting to the tax rates the wealthiest and most 
successful paid during the Clinton era of prosperity did not hurt our 
economy.
  This package certainly is not ideal. Let me be perfectly clear, I do 
not think we should be giving the wealthiest Americans, those who are 
the most able to share in the sacrifice needed in today's economy, even 
more in tax cuts just to keep taxes from increasing on the middle 
class. But that is the hand we have been dealt. We had votes on 
extending middle class tax cuts, and we could not garner enough 
Republican support to pass them.
  Now the decision is not whether or not to support tax cuts for the 
wealthy. The decision before us today is whether we are going to stand 
up for the middle class and protect them from the tax increase that is 
looming 2 weeks from now.
  The bottom line is that this package meets our priority on this side 
of the aisle, of making a real difference in the lives of middle class 
families affected by layoffs, families struggling to make ends meet, 
and, in the process, help further stimulate our fragile economy, rather 
than allow it to slide back into recession.
  If we can achieve that, then this compromise is well worth it.
  I hope that those on the other side who have shamelessly stood for 
putting more money in the pockets of millionaires and billionaires 
regardless of the cost, regardless of the fact that doing so has failed 
to create jobs, will not come back a year or 2 years from now and have 
the audacity to blame this administration or members on this side of 
the aisle for fiscal irresponsibility, that we will never again be 
lectured about deficits by those who demand billions of dollars in 
deficit spending for the heir of estates worth more than $5 million.
  That is what a Republican world looks like. It is a world of blue 
smoke and mirrors in which they tell us we can see castles, kingdoms, 
an economy that is not real and jobs that are not there.
  The negotiations to get to this point revealed much about the 
priorities of each party, and frankly the tactics employed by my 
Republican colleagues do not sit well with me and many of my fellow 
Democrats.
  But the bottom line is that most of my colleagues recognize, as I do, 
that this package will make a real difference in the lives of middle 
class families struggling in difficult economic circumstances.
  And I believe it will have strong support, that it will benefit 
millions of average Americans who simply want us to do what is right 
for them.
  It is my hope that this package is the last time we will be forced to 
cut a deal for the wealthy just to protect middle-class families.
  I listened with great interest to the words of the President when he 
spoke about tax reform recently. We have an opportunity to reform the 
Tax Code, to simplify what has become a nightmare for millions of 
Americans, to get rid of so much preferential treatment for special 
interests currently in the code, and to lower income tax rates for 
everybody.
  We should have a Tax Code that reflects the general interests of the 
American people, not one that forces the less politically connected to 
pay more in taxes than those with powerful allies.
  And I expect that the next time this issue comes up, we will not be 
discussing whether or not to extend the failed tax policies of the Bush 
administration, but how to best simplify the Tax Codes so tax rates for 
everybody can be reduced permanently and responsibly.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, in times like these, we cannot afford to 
play games with the economic security of middle-class families in 
Nevada, and across America.
  This bill is not perfect, but it gives those families the boost they 
so desperately need. It will create 2 million jobs, according to an 
estimate by the Center for American Progress. For Nevadans, the energy 
tax cut provisions will create as many as 2,500 jobs in Nevada alone, 
at a time when jobs are so badly needed.
  This bill will cut taxes for middle-class families and small 
businesses. It contains a $120 billion payroll tax reduction, which 
will give the average middle-class family a tax cut of $1,200. It 
extends the college tax credit to help more Americans get the education 
and skills they need to compete. And it will ensure that Americans who 
are still looking for work will continue to have the safety net they 
rely on to make ends meet.
  It is unfortunate that my Republican colleagues drew this process out 
so long. While we ultimately were able to reach a compromise, there was 
one point that Republicans refused to compromise on: they were dead set 
on delivering huge tax breaks to people who do not need them, no matter 
what.
  Warren Buffett recently came forward and said, I don't need a tax 
cut. Give it to the person who's serving

[[Page 22024]]

lunch. This is just common sense. In tough times, we should concentrate 
our efforts on helping the people who need it most. Not only will it 
help them more, but they are more likely to spend the money and help 
grow our economy.
  Unfortunately, this debate also revealed that my Republican 
colleagues would rather talk about the deficit than actually do 
anything to bring it down. The giveaways to millionaires that they 
fought for will add $700 billion to our deficit. My Republican friends 
love to talk about the deficit, but when it came time for them to make 
a decision, cutting the deficit took a back seat to giving tax breaks 
to people who do not need them.
  In the future, I hope my Republican colleagues will match their 
actions to their rhetoric, and start working with us to bring down the 
deficit.
  Clearly, we Democrats disagree with our Republican colleagues about 
where we should be focusing our efforts in this tough economy. We think 
we should be focusing on the middle class, they think we should be 
giving more benefits to the wealthiest among us, even if those benefits 
add to the deficit.
  But despite our disagreements, we were able to reach a compromise. 
Because that is what the American people want us to do: find common 
ground, and reach solutions that will benefit our middle class.
  The framework agreed upon by President Obama and Senate Republicans 
might not be the approach I would have taken. But with millions of 
American families still struggling to make ends meet, it is our 
responsibility not to let the perfect be the enemy of the good. I know 
our counterparts in the House will pass this bill quickly so that we 
can get it to the President's desk as soon as possible, and give 
middle-class Americans a little more peace of mind this holiday season.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will be 2 
minutes of debate equally divided and controlled between the two 
leaders or their designees.
  The Senator from Michigan.


                       Unanimous Consent Requests

  Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, as we proceed to this important final 
vote, there are two provisions I strongly believe ought to be in this 
bill. They are bipartisan provisions. I came to the floor yesterday to 
offer a unanimous consent on both of those. Unfortunately, our 
Republican colleagues were not on the Senate floor, so out of a 
courtesy I did not proceed. But I will now at this point.
  The advanced energy manufacturing tax credit, 48C--a strong 
bipartisan effort to make sure we are making things in America, 
creating over 17,000 jobs in 43 States across the country, leveraging 
$7.7 billion in private investment,--should be included in this bill so 
when we talk about energy and new innovation, we are making it in 
America.
  Therefore, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the second-degree 
amendment to the Reid-McConnell substitute to offer amendment No. 4775, 
an amendment to extend the 48C advanced energy manufacturing tax 
credit.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. KYL. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Ms. STABENOW. Madam President, I have a second unanimous consent 
request. I also spoke last night about the urgent need to fix an IRS 
reporting provision for small business----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Ms. STABENOW. I ask unanimous consent for another 10 seconds to offer 
a unanimous consent request in order to set aside the second-degree 
amendment to the Reid-McConnell substitute to offer an amendment No. 
4773 that would repeal the 1099 reporting requirement for small 
business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. KYL. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a 
sufficient second.
  Under the previous order, the question is on agreeing to the motion 
to concur in the House amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R. 4853 
with amendment No. 4753.
  The yeas and nays have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  The result was announced--yeas 81, nays 19, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 276 Leg.]

                                YEAS--81

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Begich
     Bennet
     Bennett
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brown (MA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coons
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     Dodd
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson
     Kerry
     Kirk
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     LeMieux
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     Manchin
     McCain
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Nelson (FL)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Thune
     Vitter
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wicker

                                NAYS--19

     Bingaman
     Coburn
     DeMint
     Dorgan
     Ensign
     Feingold
     Gillibrand
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Merkley
     Sanders
     Sessions
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Voinovich
     Wyden
  The motion was agreed to.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mrs. LINCOLN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. AKAKA. Madam President, with our vote today on the Tax Relief, 
Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010, 
we have passed legislation that will have profound short- and long-term 
consequences for our nation. I supported this measure once it became 
the only available option to provide much-needed help to American 
families. I, however, have deep concerns with other aspects of this 
bill, and I extend my support for it with strong reservations.
  Our economy has not yet recovered from the downturn that began over 2 
years ago. Hawaii's foreclosure rate in October of this year was the 
12th highest in the Nation. In November, Hawaii saw a 49-percent 
increase in consumer bankruptcy filings compared to the same month in 
2009, the second largest increase in the country. These are strong 
indications that people in Hawaii cannot sustain an increase in their 
tax obligations. We cannot allow taxes to rise on the workingclass when 
so many homeowners are already unable to afford their mortgages and 
consumers are unable to meet their outstanding debt obligations.
  One major cause of these problems is unemployment, and I would not 
have been able to support this legislation had it not included a 13-
month extension of unemployment benefits. Families and individuals 
across Hawaii and the Nation need these benefits to help pay their 
rents and mortgages while they search for a job, and parents need this 
assistance to put food on the table and provide for their children. I 
refuse to abandon these people. That is why I supported this bill.
  I regret that we were unable to provide permanent tax relief for 
working-class Americans, families, and small businesses because their 
financial well-being has been haplessly tied to tax cuts for 
millionaires and billionaires since the beginning of this tax debate. 
Earlier this month, we considered two fair and reasonable tax 
proposals--one to permanently extend the expiring tax cuts for families 
earning under $250,000, followed by a compromise that included 
Americans earning up to $1 million a year. These were good-faith 
efforts to provide help where it is most needed--to families and small 
businesses that, unlike the millionaires and billionaires out there, do 
not have

[[Page 22025]]

the financial security to weather the recession. Unfortunately, both 
were defeated by a minority of my colleagues and instead we have been 
forced to maintain fiscally irresponsible Bush-era tax policies through 
the legislation that we have just passed.
  When these tax cuts were enacted at the beginning of this decade, I 
called it ``irresponsible fiscal policy.'' I correctly predicted that 
the upper income tax breaks would lead to an explosion of the deficit 
and leave a mountain of debt for future generations. At the time, I 
lobbied for targeted tax cuts that would stimulate economic growth and 
employment while preserving fiscal discipline.
  The national debt now stands above $13.8 trillion. Our budget 
surpluses have long since turned into deficits. Difficult budget 
choices are now before us. We will have the opportunity to reexamine 
these tax cuts for the richest Americans that we have just imprudently 
extended, as well as the temporary estate tax and payroll tax holiday 
provisions in the bill. Fiscal discipline must be maintained. I am 
prepared to make hard choices to restore and preserve our country's 
long-term economic security. Until then, I am pleased that we were able 
to help the unemployed and working-class through this extension of 
expiring tax provisions and unemployment benefits, and that is why I 
supported this bill.

                          ____________________